Off our coast, aquaculture may benefit fishing

An angler off the Southern California coast who catches a 20-pound white seabass experiences the thrill of fishing. What she may not realize is that there is a good chance that the prize she fought to land is the product of fish farming, something many fishing advocates dismiss out of hand as a bad thing.

As representatives of interests that are sometimes at odds — commercial and recreational fishing — we share a seemingly counterintuitive concept. We believe fish farming, especially domestic fish farming, is good and even necessary for commercial and recreational fishing.

In the 1950s, party boat catches of white seabass off Southern California totaled more than 50,000 fish a year. By the 1980s, they had virtually disappeared as a sports fish. Today, thanks to an innovative hatchery and replenishment program that raises white seabass from minuscule eggs to the 10-inch juvenile release size, the white seabass fishery has been much restored. That is why recreational fishing interests like United Anglers support responsible aquaculture, or fish farming.

Commercial fishing interests realize that catches from wild fisheries are limited, and we have reached the peak. It is alarmist to claim that wild fisheries will collapse by mid-century, but sustainable yields of wild fish cannot be increased. Demand for seafood is growing due to population growth and a burgeoning list of proven health benefits, yet supply from the wild will remain flat.

Both recreational and commercial fishing face the same challenges — fisheries at risk, demand exceeding sustainable wild supplies and environmental challenges such as pollution, coastal runoff and climate change that compound the problem. We need to embrace the same solution.

Aquaculture dates back thousands of years to when the Chinese harvested fish that had been washed into ponds by monsoons. Today, it is “probably the fastest growing food-producing sector — and is perceived as having the greatest potential to meet the growing demand for aquatic food,” according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

However, it is, for the most part, happening outside the United States. We import about 80 percent of our seafood. Nearly 50 percent of that is farmed. The question is do we want to expand aquaculture here or do we want to keep increasing our imports?

While imports help put food on the table, they cannot provide a quality recreational fishing experience.

Many in the commercial fishing sector are wary of aquaculture. If farmed fish are sold for less than wild caught fish, then commercial fishing is at a disadvantage. But what if the same infrastructure (boats, processing and distribution) were used for aquaculture?Increasing the supply of fish can benefit commercial fishing without competing. Environmentalists have concerns that modern methods are aiming to address. These include pollution, escapements of non-native species, net loss of protein when farming carnivorous fish, use of drugs and antibiotics and transfer of disease to wild fish. Scientific research has developed solutions to almost all of these concerns.

One promising potential is fish farming in federal waters from three to 200 miles offshore.In deeper water with a good current, pollution issues are likely to be minimal. Better water quality will mean healthier, higher quality fish. Farming only common species, and using feed with increasing amounts of plant protein helps address concerns about invasive species and unsustainable feed requirements.